[W. K. Lis]

Every 10 years, after a census, the provinces’ Electoral Boundaries Commissions kick into high gear to adjust the electoral map. Over the next two years, using the data obtained through the census and information gained through public hearings, each Commission submits a proposed electoral map to the House of Commons.

While the commissions will consider objections from members of the House, the final decisions on where those boundaries lie, rests with them.

In similar fashion, when it comes to actually running an election, that task falls to Elections Canada, also an independent and non-partisan agency.

Elections Canada’s mantra is uniformity; from the way political campaigns finance themselves, to the way voters obtain their ballots and how they cast them — it all has to be the same across the country, right down to the way those ballots are counted.

On election night in Canada, when all the voters have gone home, when the polls have closed, when the ballot counting begins, there is no margin for variance. There’s a book to follow, and the book is very specific about how the next few hours shake out.

The book has diagrams to show how to use scissors to open the ballot box. The book says someone has to observe you picking out the ballots. The book says your co-worker must then run their hand around the inside of the box to make sure no ballots get left behind.

One co-worker unfolds the ballot, then hands it to the next, who counts it. They may hold up the ballot to show scrutineers from the political parties if they’re present. But the scrutineers aren’t allowed to touch the ballot, merely to lean in and squint.

“Everybody counts the votes exactly the same way,” said Natasha Gauthier of Elections Canada. “It is literally by the book.”

“There’s a checklist, and the checklist goes in a manila envelope, and then someone checks the checklist to make sure that everything’s been checked off. And then it’s signed and some stuff has to be double-signed by two different people.”

In Canada, on election night, every single polling station in the country counts ballots this way.

And that uniformity applies to all the facets of running an election that Elections Canada manages, Gauthier said.

“Our mandate is to make sure that everybody who can vote is able to vote,” she said.

It’s a system created a hundred years ago — Elections Canada is celebrating its 100th birthday this year — to avoid what Dennis Pilon refers to as a politically mutually assured destruction.

Pilon, an associate professor in the Department of Politics at York University, said the decision was made in this country to fundamentally forswear the use of the electoral process as a political weapon, for fear of those actions damaging all parties concerned.

“What you have in Canada is not so much a depoliticized approach, but an agreement by all parties to essentially put the question beyond politics,” he said. “At some point, the various political players said, ‘You know what? This is too risky to leave this in a totally partisan way. It’s taking up too much of our time fighting over it. So we’re all going to agree to do it this way.’”

That’s not to say that attempts have not been made to influence Elections Canada’s actions, said Pilon.

In 2014, just ahead of a 2015 federal election, Stephen Harper’s majority Conservative government passed Bill C-23.

Aside from cutting the agency’s budget — forcing it to abandon a pilot project for online voting — the bill, among other things, stripped Elections Canada of its ability to actively encourage Canadians to vote. It also decreed that, on Election Day, incumbent candidates would appoint polling supervisors, rather than Elections Canada.

But the bill drew massive outrage from the public and opposition parties, even as it passed through Parliament, and in the run-up to the 2015 election, both NDP leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal leader and future Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowed to repeal it if elected.

In 2018, Trudeau’s government passed Bill C-76, which walked back many of the provisions of Harper’s Law.

While it’s unlikely that such a law could be passed at a federal level south of the border, undoing a similar law that restricted voter access would require a sequence of events that would only occur with difficulty in the U.S., where changes in voter laws have to be accomplished state by state.

“Our (Canadian) system is not so much the product of some sort of enlightened better angels,” said Pilon. “I think there’s an element to that, of course; it was certainly sold that way. But not too far beneath the surface is a cold, hard partisan battle. And it just happens that the battle was configured quite differently in the United States.”

 

[adma]

The telltale sign of the election is when Texas, Alabama or Kentucky go Democrat.

These are 3 diehard Republican states and if they go the country goes.

Though at this point, Texas is far likelier than Alabama or Kentucky, on grounds of the same suburbanizing-moderation demographic evolution that's affected Arizona (now leaning Dem) and Georgia (now GOP-leaning-bordering-on-tossup).

 

[Northern Light]

This story is actually 3 weeks old.........but I missed it..........and I just enjoyed the headline enough I felt the need to share:

Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Tucker Carlson has a long history of making racist and controversial statements as a primetime host on Fox News.

www.businessinsider.com

From the judge:

US District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil agreed with Fox's premise, adding that the network "persuasively argues"
that "given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes."

 

[Johnny Au]

This story is actually 3 weeks old.........but I missed it..........and I just enjoyed the headline enough I felt the need to share:

Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Tucker Carlson has a long history of making racist and controversial statements as a primetime host on Fox News.

www.businessinsider.com

From the judge:

US District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil agreed with Fox's premise, adding that the network "persuasively argues"
that "given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes."

Mary Kay Vyskocil: Tucker Carlson is essentially the right-wing Jon Stewart. Carlson's show is definitely news satire at best and not meant to be taken at face value. I just don't see anyone taking Carlson's show seriously. I just don't.

Tucker Carlson: Thank you so much ma'am. My freeze peach is paramount in a great democracy as ours in the good ol' US of A. Oh, and QAnon is real and COVID-19 is invented by CNN and MSNBC. Trust me. Unlike Colbert, I'm the Real McCoy and I don't trust anyone who's both circumcized at birth and doesn't eat pork. Pork is the best meat, especially when prepared as bacon. Screw Jews, Muslims, yoga moms, and vegans.

Progressives: Tucker Carlson's not the right-wing Jon Stewart. First and foremost, Carlson is extremely toxic and isn't being funny at all. He takes everything seriously. He sounds like an angry televangelist from rural Oklahoma at best.

 

[adma]

Of course, that assumes that the viewers in question are "reasonable". "Reasonable viewer" might as well be a metaphor for the show's own producers, advertisers, etc--those who are "in on the game".

 

[Johnny Au]

Of course, that assumes that the viewers in question are "reasonable". "Reasonable viewer" might as well be a metaphor for the show's own producers, advertisers, etc--those who are "in on the game".

See here:

Poe's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is obvious Judge Vyskocil isn't familiar with Poe's Law. To be fair, that law was formulated only a decade-and-a-half ago.

 

[Admiral Beez]

‘A crazy system’: U.S. voters face huge lines and gerrymandering. How Elections Canada makes a world of difference north of the border

From link.

The most impactful thing Elections Canada does that would benefit all voters in the USA is universal, nationwide voter ID rules.

ID to Vote – Elections Canada

Voter Identification at the Polls.

www.elections.ca

Three Things the U.S. Could Learn from Canada’s Election

Some sensible election rules from our neighbor to the north.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[Admiral Beez]

Though at this point, Texas is far likelier than Alabama or Kentucky, on grounds of the same suburbanizing-moderation demographic evolution that's affected Arizona (now leaning Dem) and Georgia (now GOP-leaning-bordering-on-tossup).

Once Biden and a GOP Congress enact a fast track to citizenship for Daca and the eleven Million illegals/undocumented in the US we can expect Texas to go hardcore Dem.

 

[Richard White]

The most impactful thing Elections Canada does that would benefit all voters in the USA is universal, nationwide voter ID rules.

ID to Vote – Elections Canada

Voter Identification at the Polls.

www.elections.ca

Three Things the U.S. Could Learn from Canada’s Election

Some sensible election rules from our neighbor to the north.

www.brennancenter.org

What the US needs is to nationalize their elections. Right now every state has their own voting rules unlike Canada where everything is uniform in every part of the country for every election.

Until they have uniformity in the US and modernise their elections they will continue to have problems.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What the US needs is to nationalize their elections. Right now every state has their own voting rules unlike Canada where everything is uniform in every part of the country for every election.

Until they have uniformity in the US and modernise their elections they will continue to have problems.

The US is not a nation though, but instead a collection of individual States that have agreed to be represented by a President. Each State set the conditions upon which it joined the Union. That’s the core barrier to fixing much of what ails the US. Abortion and LGBT “rights“are not enshrined in the Constitution or its Amendments and are thus not rights at all, so any State can legally limit these issues. That’s why the ERA is so important.

The new right leaning SCOTUS will be a shocker to many Americans in 2021, when for example a State permits businesses to discriminate against gay customers or employees and the SCOTUS declines to take the case, or more likely votes that decisions of such discrimination lay with the policy makers, not the courts and thus tell the States to make whatever laws they want and that the voters can decide if they support it. That’s the end of minority rights in the US, outside of those specifically outlined in the Constitution and its Amendments.

 

[ShonTron]

The US is not a nation though, but instead a collection of individual States that have agreed to be represented by a President. Each State set the conditions upon which it joined the Union. That’s the core barrier to fixing much of what ails the US. Abortion and LGBT “rights“are not enshrined in the Constitution or its Amendments and are thus not rights at all, so any State can legally limit these issues. That’s why the ERA is so important.

The new right leaning SCOTUS will be a shocker to many Americans in 2021, when for example a State permits businesses to discriminate against gay customers or employees and the SCOTUS declines to take the case, or more likely votes that decisions of such discrimination lay with the policy makers, not the courts and thus tell the States to make whatever laws they want and that the voters can decide if they support it. That’s the end of minority rights in the US, outside of those specifically outlined in the Constitution and its Amendments.

It's a move back to the antebellum days, when the emphasis was on the United States. The Union victory, along with Reconstruction after, saw more of an emphasis on the United. That focus on the United in United States was evident under the leadership of both Roosevelts, for example, and then Truman and Eisenhower. That was the era of truly national projects, like the New Deal, the war effort, and the Interstate Highway System. That attitude lasted until the end of Johnson's run, with his Great Society measures like Medicaid and Medicare, and the Civil Rights Act. It slowly deteriorated from Nixon onwards.

The Second Amendment wasn't about giving people the right to collect and bear arms, it was about giving the right to each state to have their own militias independent of the federal government. It was those state militias that formed the basis of the Confederate army, raised to "protect states' rights" when they saw that Lincoln (who was a pragmatist, not a hard-core abolitionist) was going to move against slavery in any territory or any future state.

We'll just see further decentralization the way things are going, which is not good.

 

[Johnny Au]

It's a move back to the antebellum days, when the emphasis was on the United States. The Union victory, along with Reconstruction after, saw more of an emphasis on the United. That focus on the United in United States was evident under the leadership of both Roosevelts, for example, and then Truman and Eisenhower. That was the era of truly national projects, like the New Deal, the war effort, and the Interstate Highway System. That attitude lasted until the end of Johnson's run, with his Great Society measures like Medicaid and Medicare, and the Civil Rights Act. It slowly deteriorated from Nixon onwards.

The Second Amendment wasn't about giving people the right to collect and bear arms, it was about giving the right to each state to have their own militias independent of the federal government. It was those state militias that formed the basis of the Confederate army, raised to "protect states' rights" when they saw that Lincoln (who was a pragmatist, not a hard-core abolitionist) was going to move against slavery in any territory or any future state.

We'll just see further decentralization the way things are going, which is not good.

I will not be surprised if there's going to be a second American Civil War before the end of this decade.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I will not be surprised if there's going to be a second American Civil War before the end of this decade.

No...chance. For a Civil War you need a recognizable, declared organization that holds territory, like in the Yugoslavian civil wars of the 1990s. Think Confederates, Tamil Tigers, Việt Cộng, Bolsheviks, etc. There‘s no likelihood of something similar happening in the USA. Many people like to think they live in extraordinary times, but these four years are a blip in history, this is not the spark of 1933’s rise of fascism or whatnot.

Instead here’s what‘s going to happen over the next four years... Trump loses in Nov 2020, Dems keep the House and gain the Senate. President Biden packs the Courts with liberal and activist judges, rejoins the global Climate agreement, and declares that he wants tax reform and expanded Obamacare, a fast track for DACA and other illegals to citizenship, passage of the ERA and maybe student loan relief. Just as the Dem Congress blocked Obama, the Dem House and Senate bicker over paying for these initiatives and new Dem Congress members discover the joys of lobbyists and pork. So nothing gets done, not DACA, ERA, etc.. and now it’s 2022 and through anger over court packing, Trumpists regain the Senate majority on the promise to shut down the Dems. 2023....Biden resigns to give Harris time to make a mark before 2024. 2024, in a massive move against President Harris, GOP wins the White House by a landslide, keeps the Senate, Dems keep the House. And we‘re back to where we started. The right wing in the US is playing the long game, it’s not about civil war, but incrementally gaining control. The left wing is too disorganized and weak to rise up.

 

[PinkLucy]

I believe we will continue to see pockets of unrest, but I don’t know that it would be a civil war because as Admiral Beez pointed out, what would such a war entail? North vs South? Fighting for what? Territory? A new country? Plots like the one to kidnap the governor of Michigan are a reality, I think, and hopefully they don’t become more sophisticated.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I believe we will continue to see pockets of unrest, but I don’t know that it would be a civil war because as Admiral Beez pointed out, what would such a war entail? North vs South? Fighting for what? Territory? A new country? Plots like the one to kidnap the governor of Michigan are a reality, I think, and hopefully they don’t become more sophisticated.

Not succession in the same way as how the CSA broke away (a fight between established political constructs), but I can definitely see regionally based "redoubt" movements and other forces attempting insurrection. Some of the states harbouring these movements have politicians openly sympathetic to their cause - we just haven't seen them band together yet.

AoD